HB 1978
In CommitteeHouse
Election tabulation devices
Concerning transparency in election tabulation devices.
This status may be delayed. See Action History below for the latest updates.
How does a bill become law?
- Introduced: The bill is filed and assigned a number.
- Committee: A subject-matter committee holds hearings, takes public testimony, and decides whether to advance the bill.
- Floor Vote: The full chamber (House or Senate) debates and votes on the bill.
- Opposite Chamber: The bill repeats the committee and floor vote process in the other chamber.
- Governor: The Governor reviews the bill and decides whether to sign or veto it.
- Signed: The bill has been signed into law.
AI Analysis
This bill requires election equipment vendors to provide the source code for ballot tabulation systems to county auditors, and mandates that those codes be made publicly available upon request—unless protected by law—to improve transparency and voter confidence in election outcomes. It responds to concerns about vote-counting accuracy and public distrust in recent elections.
- Requires all contracts with election tabulation equipment vendors to include a clause mandating delivery of the source code to the county auditor.
- Mandates that county auditors make source code publicly available upon request, unless it is legally protected as confidential under state law (e.g., trade secrets or security-related exemptions under the Public Records Act).
- Defines 'source code' clearly as the human-readable version of computer instructions used to run ballot tabulation systems.
- Aims to increase public trust in election results by allowing independent verification of how votes are counted.
Who is affected
- County auditors — County auditors must now ensure vendor contracts include source code access and may be required to share that code with the public, unless it's legally protected as confidential.
- Election equipment vendors — Vendors of election tabulation equipment must now include provisions in contracts allowing counties to obtain source code and may be required to disclose it to the public.
- General public — Members of the public (voters, researchers, journalists, etc.) may request and inspect source code used in ballot tabulation systems to verify how votes are counted.
- State and local election officials — State and local election officials must navigate new requirements for managing and potentially releasing sensitive software code while balancing transparency and security.
Pro/Con Analysis
Stronger case for benefits
Potential Benefits (5)
Public access to source code enables independent technical verification of vote-counting accuracy—empowering researchers, journalists, and citizens to audit elections and detect potential errors or manipulation—thereby strengthening trust in democratic outcomes.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)Increases civic participation by addressing a key driver of voter disengagement—distrust in election fairness—especially among historically marginalized groups who are disproportionately affected by low confidence in electoral legitimacy.
Rights & LibertiesPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)Source code availability supports civic education and computer science curricula by providing real-world, election-related software for classroom analysis—enhancing STEM literacy and democratic engagement among students.
EducationPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)Standardizes vendor contract terms statewide, reducing variability in how counties acquire and manage election technology—potentially improving procurement efficiency and reducing long-term legal disputes over ownership of code.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)May incentivize development of more secure, open-source election tools by encouraging transparency as a market differentiator—benefiting vendors who prioritize verifiability and public trust over proprietary secrecy.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(1)
Potential Concerns (5)
Releasing source code to the public may expose vulnerabilities in election systems to malicious actors, potentially enabling targeted cyberattacks or disinformation campaigns that undermine election integrity—especially if redactions are insufficient or inconsistently applied across counties.
Public SafetyPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)County auditors will face increased administrative burdens—reviewing requests, coordinating with vendors, redacting legally protected content, and potentially litigating public records disputes—without additional state funding, straining limited local resources.
Local GovernmentPeopleRef: Sec. 2(1)Vendors may raise prices or reduce service offerings in Washington due to increased compliance costs and exposure to competitive or legal risks, potentially limiting vendor competition and innovation in election technology.
Business & EmploymentLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(1)While the bill enhances public access to government processes, it does not create new legal rights or enforceable individual entitlements—only a procedural right to request source code, subject to existing exemptions (e.g., trade secrets, security concerns).
Rights & LibertiesRef: Sec. 2(1)Inconsistent redaction practices across 39 counties could lead to partial or premature release of sensitive code, increasing risk of exploitation by bad actors—even if unintentional—and undermining uniform election security standards.
Public SafetyLean peopleRef: Sec. 2(1)
Who Is Most Affected
County auditors gain new authority to obtain and potentially disclose source code, but face added compliance duties without new funding—increasing workload and liability risk if disclosures are mishandled.
Vendors must now include source code provisions in contracts and may be compelled to disclose code—threatening competitive advantage and increasing legal exposure, though some may adapt by offering certified open-source solutions.
The general public gains unprecedented access to election software, enabling independent verification of vote counts—particularly benefiting researchers, journalists, and civic technologists who advocate for election integrity.
State election officials gain a clearer legal framework for managing source code requests, but must coordinate with counties on redaction standards and respond to potential legal challenges over disclosure scope.
Cybersecurity researchers and academic institutions gain access to real-world voting system code—enhancing their ability to audit, teach, and improve election technology—though they may face inconsistent access across counties.